Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) frame the safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: this call never accepts or changes a request but does mark updates as seen so alerts stop repeating. That side effect explains the non-read-only hint and is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the primary list behavior followed by the request_id variant, usage triggers, and the side-effect caveat. Slightly long but every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is wasted or redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does: status, required action, deltas since last look, and full history for a single request. With only two non-required parameters and full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds scenario-level meaning: giving request_id returns one request 'with its whole history', and the default path returns both incoming and outgoing lists. include_finished is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its clear description there.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('See your person's requests') and enumerates the return content: incoming/outgoing, status, what it needs, what changed. It is distinguishable from siblings like notifications, my_friends, and answer_request without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('when your person asks what they're waiting on, what they agreed to do, what changed, or whether something is finished') and implicitly routes mutation to answer_request/update_request via 'Looking never accepts or changes a request'. No sibling is named as an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.